AMD FX-8350 Faster Than i7-4930K For UHD

[Opcode]

Sauce

 

Earlier on in the week, we pitted our AMD and Intel systems against each other, in a battle at 2560x1440. The GPUs in question were NVIDIA's reference GeForce GTX 780s in SLI, and the new GTX 980s in SLI. For $300, the AMD represents super value, and what most would think, the loser out of the two setups.

 

Benchmarks

[Interfectorem]

I find this hard to believe.

 

Nowhere in the article does it mention the clock speeds of each CPU. (Although I skimmed, I still didn't find anything about that)

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm retarded. The 4930K is at Stock

[worldwin]

How is this news? All you did was copy and paste benchmarks.

[Clyne]

wat  I find this hard to believe that a FX cpu is better than a i7 in UHD. 

[flibberdipper]

How is this news?

 

Also, finding this kinda hard to believe.

[Scionyde]

GTX 780's in SLI aren't passing 60 fps average in Bioshock Infinite at 1440p?

 

Am I missing something? That seems really off to me.

[Opcode]

How is this news? All you did was copy and paste benchmarks.

I smell me a fanboy.

 

[Razzaa]

Sauce

 

 

Benchmarks

Well, considering there is currently 0 AMD CPU's in the top 100 in Fire Strike........i call BS.

[Toddwjp]

GTX 780's in SLI aren't passing 60 fps average in Bioshock Infinite at 1440p?

 

Am I missing something? That seems really off to me.

 

i call full bullshit

 

also it says the i7 is at stock but not say anything about the fx 8350, it could be 5ghz for all we know with a full loop

[mr.squishy]

I like and use AMD products and even I find this hard to believe.

[monstercameron]

i call full bullshit

 

also it says the i7 is at stock but not say anything about the fx 8350, it could be 5ghz for all we know with a full loop

errata is a better term.

[Techhog]

Yeah, I'm smelling bullshit. There is literally no logical reason for something like this to be the case. 

[carolkarine]

GTX 780's in SLI aren't passing 60 fps average in Bioshock Infinite at 1440p?

 

Am I missing something? That seems really off to me.

 

this. I'm mostly confused about this. unless tweaktown somehow got proper threading support I doubt the rest, but the BI numbers bring this article to point of me thinking they made the whole thing up.

[Interfectorem]

I like and use AMD products and even I find this hard to believe.

Same, I liked to defend my dated 8320 from time to time, but this is a 4930K we're talking about. This is really hard to believe.

[Razzaa]

i call full bullshit

 

also it says the i7 is at stock but not say anything about the fx 8350, it could be 5ghz for all we know with a full loop

Still wouldn't be faster.......

[worldwin]

I smell me a fanboy.

 

You do realise the article you posted about was not EVEN the same purpose yes? Cause the article was not about how the 8350 is faster than the 4930k. The title you wrote is obvious click bait.

All you did was draw a conclusion from an article that was not even the same focus as the claim you made in the title.

[Toddwjp]

Still wouldn't be faster.......

 

i felt like giving amd a little credit,

[Opcode]

You do realise the article you posted about was not EVEN the same purpose yes? Cause the article was not about how the 8350 is faster than the 4930k. The title you wrote is obvious click bait.

All you did was draw a conclusion from an article that was not even the same focus as the claim you made in the title.

It is in the right section, very relevant hardware still to date (especially GTX 980's), welcome to the forum.

[Faceman]

Its a GPU bound scenario, of course the difference between the two is going to be minimal.  Set it to 1080p and run the tests again.

 

At Ultra 4k, you are almost entirely GPU bound.

[RainColt]

What I see here is simply a showcase that if you run your games at ultra your bottleneck is going to end up being the GPU not the CPU, whether your going to get results that always show the AMD on top will vary with mileage but as far as gaming goes your cpu is conspicuously overshadowed by GPU performance, I've run some of my own benchmarks and even at the lowest settings 640x480 in most of my games I am still bottle necked by the GPU, so yeah I'm not surprised with this result, I would expect Intel to more consistently edge out AMD but I'm not ostensibly surprised.

 

Edit: What does surprise me is that Intel is consistently lower, I have seen up to 10fps variation in my own testing so I could see each test bouncing back and forth a frame or two but to have Intel consistently lower is a red flag to me that would suggest the result were true but were cherry picked in AMDs favor.

[MbV93]

i call full bullshit

 

also it says the i7 is at stock but not say anything about the fx 8350, it could be 5ghz for all we know with a full loop

 

They're both at stock and even if it was at 5Ghz it does little difference in the bulldozer architecture.

[The_Strict_Nein]

Gonna have to call BS on this, seeing as UHD is NOT CPU bound, as the number of draw calls is exactly the same. The only differentiator between two resolutions (not graphics settings) is the amount of pixels being rendered, a GPU process. As every other benchmark I've ever seen supports this, I can only assume something else is going on

[Toddwjp]

They're both at stock and even if it was at 5Ghz it does little difference in the bulldozer architecture.

 

i read the article it doesnt mention the clock of the fx at all

[Faceman]

Check out TweakTown's same test @ 1440p

 

Here you see the Intel rightfully pulling ahead.  Also, they don't mention how high the 8350 is overclocked, because lets be real, it has to be overclocked to even get within striking distance of stock Intel.  The actual numbers seem a little suspicious too though. They are filled with abnormalities at both Ultra4k and 1440p.

[patrickjp93]

i call full bullshit

 

also it says the i7 is at stock but not say anything about the fx 8350, it could be 5ghz for all we know with a full loop

It could be at 6 or more with LN2